Al Shimari v. CACI International, Inc.
951 F. Supp. 2d 857
E.D. Va.2013Background
- Four Iraqi citizens sued CACI Premier Technology, Inc. (a U.S. military contractor) alleging abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib between 2003–2005; claims asserted under common law and the Alien Tort Statute (ATS).
- Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint pleaded torts including torture, war crimes, cruel/inhuman treatment, aiding and abetting, and civil conspiracy; case has a complex procedural history including transfers and prior Fourth Circuit rulings.
- After the Supreme Court decided Kiobel, the district court stayed further briefing and ordered argument on Kiobel’s effect on ATS jurisdiction and choice-of-law for Plaintiff Al Shimari’s state-law claims.
- CACI PT moved to reconsider reinstatement of the ATS claims (or dismiss for lack of ATS jurisdiction) and to dismiss Al Shimari’s common-law claims for failure to state a claim under the governing law.
- The court held (1) Kiobel bars extraterritorial ATS jurisdiction over claims based on conduct that occurred exclusively in Iraq, and (2) Ohio choice-of-law principles require applying Iraqi law to Al Shimari’s common-law claims, under which Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) orders immunized contractors for contract‑related acts and for injuries connected to military combat operations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ATS provides subject‑matter jurisdiction for alleged international‑law violations occurring in Iraq | Kiobel’s “touch and concern” language allows courts to find sufficient U.S. connections to displace presumption against extraterritoriality | ATS is a jurisdictional statute; Kiobel applies the presumption against extraterritoriality and only Congress can rebut it | Dismissed ATS claims: Kiobel bars ATS jurisdiction for conduct occurring exclusively abroad; presumption not displaced here |
| Whether U.S. had de facto sovereignty over Iraq so ATS could apply | Plaintiffs relied on CPA control and Boumediene/Rasul analogies to show U.S. control over territory | CACI: Iraq was not U.S. territory; no exclusive U.S. control or express lease like Guantanamo | Court rejected de facto‑sovereignty argument; Iraq treated as foreign territory for ATS purposes |
| Choice of law for Al Shimari’s common‑law claims (Ohio v. Virginia v. Iraq) | Al Shimari argued factors favor applying Virginia (defendant’s principal place) or Ohio (forum) law | CACI argued lex loci delicti and choice rules point to Iraqi law (place of injury and conduct) | Applied Ohio choice‑of‑law rules and held Iraqi law governs (injury and conduct occurred in Iraq; other factors don’t rebut presumption) |
| Whether Al Shimari states a common‑law claim under applicable Iraqi law | Al Shimari asserted negligence and other torts under state/common law | CACI relied on CPA Order No. 17: contractors and employees not subject to Iraqi law for contract‑related matters; personal injury claims connected to combat operations fall to the contractor’s parent state | Dismissed for failure to state a claim: CPA orders immunize contractors for contract‑related acts and injuries connected to military combat operations; domestic law cannot be applied to impose liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (U.S. 2013) (ATS subject to presumption against extraterritoriality; claims based solely on foreign conduct not cognizable)
- Sosa v. Alvarez‑Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (U.S. 2004) (ATS provides jurisdiction for a narrow set of international‑law norms with definite content)
- Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (U.S. 2010) (presumption against extraterritoriality; courts should not judicially extend statutes to foreign conduct)
- Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (U.S. 2008) (analysis of de facto control and habeas jurisdiction at Guantanamo; used by plaintiffs but distinguished here)
- Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1938) (federal courts apply forum state substantive law, including choice‑of‑law rules)
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (U.S. 1964) (after transfer under §1404(a), transferee court applies law of transferor forum)